Enbridge Line 3
Line 3 is an sands oil pipeline owned and operated since 1968 by Enbridge, a Canadian energy transportation company. It runs from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. In 2014, Enbridge proposed the construction of a new route for the Line 3 pipeline which would increase the volume oil they could transport daily. While that project has been approved in Canada, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, it has sparked continued resistance from climate justice groups and Native American communities in Minnesota.
History
The original Line 3 pipeline began operating in 1968. Numerous cracks and holes have developed along the pipeline over time. Resulting concerns about the safety of the pipeline have led Enbridge to reduce the amount of oil transported daily and propose the construction of a new pipeline. In 2014, Enbridge announced plans to build the new Line 3 pipeline. That multi-billion dollar project which would allow Enbridge to restore their historic operating capacity and move nearly 800,000 barrels of oil per day.By 2016, governing bodies in Canada, North Dakota, and Wisconsin had approved their segments of the pipeline. However, the process has been more complicated in Minnesota where climate justice organizers, Native groups, and homeowners along the proposed route have resisted the project. In 2018, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission solicited public input about the project. Most feedback they received opposed the pipeline. Of the nearly 70,000 individual comments submitted, 68,244, or 94%, were in opposition. Nevertheless, in June of 2018 the PUC approved Enbridge´s desired route and granted the certificate of need, a necessary permit for the project. In June 2019, that decision was overturned when the Minnesota Court of Appeals found the PUC´s Environmental Impact Statement was inadequate, siding with several Native and climate justice groups. In February of 2020, the PUC approved a revised EIS in a 3-1 vote, and granted the certificate of need and the route permit again.
As of February 2020, Enbridge still needed permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the MN Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the new pipeline. Climate justice organizers and Native communities in Minnesota have pledged to continue resisting the pipeline's construction.
Debate in Minnesota
Opposing arguments
Climate Change
Much of the resistance to the Line 3 project comes from concerns over climate change. Climate justice groups such as the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, MN350, and Honor the Earth have Stop Line 3 campaigns. The Environmental Impact Statement, which was conducted by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, explains how the new Line 3 pipeline would contribute to deforestation, increase risk of pollution to Minnesota's pristine water ecosystems and wild rice beds, and generate the greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change. The EIS estimated that the social cost of carbon from those emissions would total more than $120 billion over 30 years. The MN Department of Commerce under Governor Mark Dayton formally denounced the proposed Line 3 project on environmental grounds. That appeal was renewed under Governor Tim Walz's administration.Oil Spills
Many people are concerned about potential oil spills along Line 3. In recent years, Enbridge has safely transported 99.999% of oil, but among other accidental releases, the original Line 3 pipeline was responsible for the largest ever inland oil spill in the U.S. In 1991, 1.7 million gallons of oil ruptured from Line 3 in Grand Rapids, MN. Enbridge was also responsible for the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill in Michigan. Clean up of that spill cost over a billion dollars and took nearly a decade. The resulting pollution has adversely affected the economy, public health, and the environment in Michigan. Enbridge has reassured the public that pipeline safety is their primary goal, employing technology to monitor pipelines, and train employees on emergency response. While big oil spills have decreased in recent years, activists in Minnesota feel that the potential for even one serious spill is too much of a risk. The Environmental Impact Statement of Line 3 acknowledges that some accidental release of oil is inevitable and that serious oil spills are possible.Ojibwe Treaty Rights
Some Native American communities in Minnesota have opposed the project on the basis of treaty rights. Most of the land in northern Minnesota was ceded to the U.S. through treaties with Ojibwe peoples throughout the 1800s. Those treaties established reservations, as well as land use rights for Ojibwe people to hunt, fish, and harvest manoomin on the rest of that ceded territory. The proposed route for the new Line 3 pipeline would cross through that protected land. Several Ojibwe communities have said that construction of the pipeline would violate treaty rights by disrupting and threatening the resources promised to them on their ancestral land. The Environmental Impact Statement acknowledges that construction of Line 3 would disrupt Native historic and cultural sites such as burial grounds. However, a complete Traditional Cultural Properties Survey has not been conducted of the proposed route.Five Ojibwe bands have resisted the pipeline replacement project in court. The White Earth, Red Lake, Mille Lacs, Fond du Lac, and Leech Lake bands all opposed the pipeline and held status as intervening parties against the project in the PUC's initial permit deliberations. After the PUC’s June 2017 approval, the White Earth and Red Lake bands were part of a joint appeal of the Certificate of Need, while the Mille Lacs, White Earth, and Red Lake bands appealed the Environmental Impact Statement. In August of 2018, the Fond du Lac band signed a right-of-way agreement with Enbridge, allowing the company to route the pipeline through their reservation. Ahead of that decision, Tribal council chairman Kevin Dupuis, Sr., said “as a sovereign nation, we are confounded that we are being forced to choose between two evils as both routes pass through our lands,” either through the reservation or ceded treaty land. The Leech Lake Band also stepped back from formal appeals in December of 2018 when Enbridge agreed to remove the old pipeline from their reservation if construction of the new pipeline starts.
Pipeline "abandonment"
The agreement between Enbridge and the Leech Lake Band centers on another debate, namely: what will happen to the infrastructure of the old Line 3 pipeline if the new one is built? Enbridge proposed a process they call "deactivation." Many who oppose the project call this "abandonment." Enbridge explains deactivation of a pipeline as a 5 step process: remove the oil, clean the pipe, disconnect it from facilities, put corrosion controls in place, and then leave the pipe in the ground. Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup, an organization opposed to Line 3, has expressed concerns about the potential for pollutants to remain after the clean up. Many landowners along the old route worry that they will bear the financial burden for the decommissioned pipe, either through costs of cleanup, removal, or lost property value. Both the Pipeline Abandonment Report from Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup and the Chippewa Cumulative Impact Statement, written to supplement the EIS, mention that Line 3 would be the first pipeline ever to be decommissioned in MN, and worry about what sort of precedent that might set.Increase in Drug and Sex Trafficking
Native activists and allies are bringing awareness to the connection between fossil fuel infrastructure projects like Line 3 and increased drug and sex trafficking in and around Native American reservations. While oil pipelines like Line 3 are being built, the construction workers stay in concentrated, temporary housing along the route, often known as “man camps.” The high wages and social isolation in man camps lead to increased drug use, as well as violence perpetrated by employees on the surrounding Native communities. In 2019, Native and climate justice activists held a “March on Enbridge to Protect the Sacred,” at the Enbridge terminal in Clearbrook, Minnesota. They demanded an end to the Line 3 project citing, among other things, “the direct link between the fossil fuel industry and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives.” The Environmental Impact Statement on Line 3 acknowledges that connection as well, saying “The addition of a temporary, cash-rich workforce increases the likelihood that sex trafficking or sexual abuse will occur.” Under the EIS, Enbridge was required to prepare a Human Trafficking Prevention Plan for the project. Enbridge’s plan has been critiqued, however, as a step made more to follow procedure than a true commitment to ending violence by their employees. Groups of Native activists and climate justice organizers maintain opposition to the pipeline over the potential for increased violence and drug trafficking along the proposed pipeline route.Arguments in Support
Job Creation
Supporters of Line 3 cite job creation as a key reason to build the pipeline. A large study published by the University of Minnesota Duluth in 2017 claimed that the Line 3 Replacement Project would create thousands of jobs. However, later that year, investigative journalists uncovered that a business group funded by Enbridge, APEX, financed the study, and that data inputs for it were provided by Enbridge themselves. In the end, a UMD Professor behind the research severed the school's ties with APEX. While there might not be significant long term job creation, supporters assert that even some temporary employment would be a key source of income for numerous families in Minnesota. The original EIS also distinguished between long and short term jobs, but came to different conclusions saying, "Based on the small number of permanent jobs, it is likely that operation of the pipeline would result in no to negligible impact on the per capita household income, median household income, or unemployment rates in the ROI ” The pipeline’s possible impact on jobs in Minnesota remains contested.Tax Revenue
Line 3 supporters argue that counties along the proposed route will benefit from the revenue of Enbridge's property taxes. In the first year of the new pipeline's operations, Enbridge bas been projected to pay $19.5 million in property taxes along the route. That number would increase over time. Climate justice organizers hold some reservations about the promise of that revenue, however, citing lawsuits in which Enbridge claimed that they had been overtaxed, and left counties across Minnesota in debt for tens of millions of dollars.Needed by the Oil Industry
Construction of the Line 3 pipeline would help the Canadian oil industry increase their production and stabilize prices. Enbridge has argued that Line 3 would help meet the demand of Minnesota's oil refineries, and they're not the only companies hoping the pipeline is built. Line 3 is seen as key to the Canadian oil industry. Difficulty transporting oil out of Alberta has led to production cuts and price discounting. While climate justice organizers might celebrate the decreased output and profitability of oilfields, thousands of Canadians are losing their jobs in oil infrastructure due to that instability. Additionally, companies which are unable to ship their product through pipelines have considered expanding train shipments of oil. Recent studies have highlighted that train transportation of oil results in more regular spills than transport by pipe. In his endorsement of Line 3, the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, supported this argument:Enbridge estimates that Line 3 would replace more than 10,000 rail cars transporting oil every day. Minnesotans for Line 3 say that by approving the pipeline, government regulators could ensure safer transport of millions of barrels of oil a year. The MN Department of Commerce, in their testimony against Line 3, questioned these projections, claiming that they depend on an unrealistic idea of the future demand of oil.